ALEXANDRA SHULMAN’S NOTEBOOK: Should we die broke – or hand it to the taxman?
This piece is a personal opinion column by Alexandra Shulman, part of her regular "Notebook" series for the Daily Mail, weighing up whether people should spend their savings during their lifetime rather than leave them to be diminished by inheritance tax after death. The topic reflects a wider debate in Britain about the fairness and practicality of inheritance tax, an issue that regularly resurfaces amid speculation about government reforms to thresholds, gifting rules and reliefs.
The provided source material for this article consisted largely of Daily Mail homepage navigation and unrelated headline links rather than the full text of Shulman's column, so specific arguments, figures or personal anecdotes she may have used could not be confirmed. In general terms, such columns typically explore the emotional and financial trade-offs of estate planning, including gifting money to family early, spending on experiences, or accepting that some wealth will pass to the state via tax.
- Opinion column debates spending savings versus inheritance tax
- Reflects wider UK debate over inheritance tax fairness and reform
- Full article text unavailable; summary based on limited source content
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who favour spending down their savings argue that money is meant to be lived, not hoarded, and that a lifetime of prudence should be rewarded with enjoyment rather than handed over largely intact to the taxman. They point out that gifts and help given while alive – towards a grandchild's education, a child's house deposit, or shared family holidays – often matter far more in the moment they are needed than an inheritance received decades later. There is also a practical dimension: since inheritance tax can claim up to 40 per cent of an estate above the threshold, spending or gifting earlier is seen as a rational, even prudent, way to ensure resources go where they are intended rather than to the Exchequer.
The case against
Those who favour preserving savings for inheritance argue that leaving something behind is an act of care and responsibility, providing children and grandchildren with security, opportunity, or a financial cushion at a time of their choosing rather than the giver's. They also warn that spending freely in later life risks leaving too little to cover unpredictable costs such as long-term care, ill health or simply living longer than expected, making caution the wiser course. Some further hold that inheritance tax, while unwelcome, is a legitimate and even fair contribution to public finances, and that building a legacy for one's family need not be undermined by accepting that a portion will go to the state.